Rudy Giuliani pleaded with a federal judge not to hold him in contempt in a series of court documents submitted on Christmas Eve.
The endeavor is part of the ongoing judgment phase in the former New York City mayor’s larger defamation lawsuit against two former Georgia election officials.
The latter fight has been lost, at least in district court. Giuliani owes Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss $148 million for defaming them in a series of false statements concerning the 2020 election.
Now, the defendant hopes to maintain some pieces of property in his family’s ownership and control while escaping the ire and penalty of the judge hearing the case.
Related Coverage:
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman scheduled a civil contempt hearing for Jan. 3; the hearings will be a bit of an omnibus meeting, with both parties’ many requests addressed.
Throughout October and November, Freeman and Moss accused Giuliani of breaking different court orders and urged that he be sanctioned and held in contempt. Some of the claimed infractions include neglecting discovery requests and failing to meet associated deadlines. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant has refused to turn over specific pieces of personal property that could be used to satisfy a portion of the multimillion-dollar amount owed.
Giuliani has now claimed that Freeman and Moss are not legally entitled to any of his property since they failed to file an oath as required by the Empire State’s litigation guidelines.
The current motion quotes the rule, in length:
Oath. A temporary receiver, before entering upon his duties, shall be sworn faithfully and fairly to discharge the trust committed to him. The oath may be administered by any person authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds by the real property law. The oath may be waived upon consent of all parties.
Giuliani claims he did not waive the oath requirement, and that neither Freeman nor Moss requested one.
“Hence, the receivership has not yet technically or legally begun,” the motion adds.
“The Oath was required to be signed by Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss as the receivers, and an oath must have been administered by any person authorized to take acknowledgment of deeds by the real property law of New York State, and then filed with the Court before the Plaintiffs began their duties as Receivers.
Even if the Plaintiffs had the option of filing the Oath at any time, they chose not to.
It appears that the Plaintiffs as receivers were never authorized by law to function as receivers since Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss did not take oaths, sign oaths, have the oaths notarized or recognized, and submit the oaths with the Court as required.”
According to the former federal prosecutor’s most recent submission, the absence of such an oath “appears” to be the current situation.
“Under applicable law, Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss should not be permitted to act and cannot act as receivers at this time or until oaths are properly executed and filed with the Court,” according to the motion. “Only then, under applicable law, should Plaintiff Ruby Freeman and Plaintiff Wandrea’ Moss be permitted to act as court appointed receivers.”
The motion cites precedence in support of its position.
The Second Department of the New York Appellate Division has held that a receiver is not entitled to receive rents until “qualified.” See, e.g., 570 Kosciusko Realty Corp. v. Kingdale Estates, Inc., 256 A.D. 997, 10 N.Y.S.2d 700 (2d Dept 1939), appeal denied, 280 N.Y. 811; Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v. Sadenet Realty, Inc., 234 A.D. 893, 254 N.Y.S. 428 (2d Dept 1931). To this date, Plaintiffs have not “qualified” as receivers because they failed to file oaths required by CPLR § 6402.
The brief also has a message for how the court has conducted itself: “Until the Plaintiffs file oaths pursuant to CPLR § 6402 to act as the receivers, the Court should not have ordered the Defendant to turn over any property to the Plaintiffs as receivers.”
Because of the apparent absence of receivership authority, the defendant claims that the court should not hear any motions for contempt or punishment “because the receivers have not been in compliance” with New York civil regulations.
Giuliani also claims that he has complied with multiple discovery demands since his counsel were removed in November.
“As this Court has seen, once Defendant’s prior counsel withdrew as counsel on November 26, 2024, present counsel for Defendant ensured nearly full compliance with all of the court orders capable of being complied with,” according to the request.
In December 2023, Freeman and Moss received a $148 million default defamation verdict for a campaign against the women in which Giuliani falsely claimed the duo were involved in fraud and had “cheated” voters in the 2020 presidential election.
The pair has since engaged in different forms of litigation to protect their monetary interests against the former federal prosecutor, including a recent series of Requests for Production of Documents (RFPs) targeted at extracting important financial information.
The plaintiffs claim Giuliani has been unresponsive, despite two successive Liman orders addressing their requests.
These orders were made by the court on October 28 and November 22. The first order required the defendant to respond to discovery requests as soon as possible and established timeframes for doing so. After the first time passed, the court set a new deadline for Giuliani to explain himself and avoid being held in contempt. After the second deadline passed, Freeman and Moss urged Liman to come back.
Giuliani now contends that, regardless of deadlines, the plaintiffs have not suffered any genuine losses as a result of the current pace.
“In the instant case, there has been no delay, as this Court is holding the trial on January 16, 2025, and the discovery in this case has been ordered to be very expedited and there has been no delays by Defendant which caused Plaintiff to incur additional costs pursuing the action and no sanctions should apply,” according to the motion.